JUDGMENT

[Mat.Appeal Nos.194/2023, 140/2020, 52/2020]

1. This order shall dispose o appeals and one RPFC; Mat.A.140 of 2020 arising out of the decision rendered in O.P.No.529 of 2016 whereby the marriage solemnized between the parties on 22.04.2016 has been annulled; Mat.A.No.194 of 2023 by the wife against the dismissal of O.P.No. 314 of 2018 return of gold ornaments and RPFC No.52 of 2020 challenging the decision dated 22.11.2019 in M.C.No.497 of 2016 granting maintenance to the wife at the rate of 5,000/- (Rupees

18.11.2016.

2. Succinctly the facts in brief for adjudication of all the three matters arising out of the marriage performed on 22.04.2016 are same and therefore the facts have been taken from Mat.Appeal No.140 of 2020

arising from O.P.No.529 of 2016.

3. The marriage between the husband and wife was performed on 22.04.2016. Before the marriage husband was working in gulf. He arrived at his native place meet the wife personally and interact with her. He could not meet her nor any steps were taken for meeting. In other words, there was no courtship.

3. After two months of the marriage husband instituted the petition and claimed annulment of the marriage on the ground that wife prior to the marriage was su psychotropic drugs meant for treating the depression. Certain incidents after performance of the reception were also narrated, i.e., regarding her conduct and behaviour when the wife was under the attack of epilepsy. In response to the aforementioned notice, wife denied allegations and stated that there was no fraud administered on the husband nor any misrepresentation or suppression of material of facts but did not deny the fact that she was under the treatment of epilepsy.

Factum of epilepsy was disclosed and with all eyes open, husband performed the marriage. At the time of the marriage thirty(30) sovereigns of the gold ornaments were given which have been misappropriated not by the husband but by the family members of the respondent husband and also sought a claim for return of the same.

4. MC was also keeping in view the status of the family. Wife alleged that after the marriage husband ill-treated her and rather claimed that they were required to be given one hundred and owing to the fact that she was su Family Court framed the following points for determination:

“1. Whether the petitioner/husband in OP

529/16 is entitled to get a decree to declare the marriage as null and void?

2. Whether the petitioner/wife in MC 497/16

is entitled to get maintenance from the respondent?

3. If yes, the quantum?

4. Relief and cost?”

5. In support of the case husband examined himself as PW1 and also examined one doctor Mr.Jithesh Shivashankaran as PW2. Placed on record Compact Disc as Ext.A1, medical prescription in the name of the wife issued from A.K.G. Memorial Co-operative hospital dated 08.08.2015 as Ext.A2 and similar prescription Ext.A2(a) dated 09.04.2016, Ext.A2(b) dated 13.11.2015, Ext.A3 Photocopy of marriage proposal form issued from Saubhagya Marriage Bureau, Ext.A4 residency permit issued from Ministry of Interior State of Qatar dated 02.03.2017 and copy of the payment receipt issued from the State of Qatar A4(a). Trial court clubbed the two matters and allowed the annulment of marriage and maintenance at the rate of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as per the decree and judgment dated

22.11.2019.

6. Few months before the adjudication of the petition seeking annulment of the marriage and maintenance wife instituted OP No. 314 of 2018 claiming return of the gold ornaments. It was also contested by the husband. Though Family Court noticed that wife placed on record the sale bills of the jewellers, entrustment of gold was not proved, resulted into dismissal. It is